Walter Gillis Peacock Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center Texas A&M University

Transcription

1 Walter Gillis Peacock Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center Texas A&M University September 23, 2009 Presentation to the National Academies Second Sustainability R&D Forum. Research discussed herein was funded by NOAA, Texas Sea Grant, the Texas General Land Office, the National Science Foundation and the United States Geological Survey. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, USGS, NOAA, or the TGLO. Kunreuther and Michel-Kerjan, 2009 Extraordinary growth in losses due to natural disasters globally and nationally Kunreuther and Michel-Kerjan, 2009 Pielke et al., 2007

2 Multi-billion dollar hurricane disasters have become the new norm* Katrina (2005) 84.6, Andrew (1992) 48, Wilma (2005) 21.5, Ike (2008) 19.3; Charley (2004) 16.3; Ivan (2004) 15.5; Rita (2005) 11.8; Frances (2004) 9.7 also, the trend for loss of life has been broken: Katrina 1,836 The notion of a mega-catastrophe is clearly in the realm of possibility * In constant 2006 dollars. From Blake, Rappaport, and Landsea 2007 The scientific consensus is that natural disasters, are not simply natural events. They are an outcome of an interaction between biophysical systems, human systems and their built environment. Human action (or inaction) is in large measure driving these trends: We continue to develop and expand into high hazard areas Increasing hazard exposure Destroying natural resources such as wetlands

3 Since 1950 population concentrations in coastal areas have grown by 106% compare to 75.8% in non-coastal areas Net results: In 2000: 48.9% of population within 50 miles of coastline In 2000: 47.8% of housing units within 50 miles of coast In 2005: population density for coastal counties was person per square mile, 5 times the density of non-coastal counties coastalatlas.tamu.edu or coasalatlas.tamug.edu

4 And when disasters occur: recovery requires massive infusions of external public and private resources, is highly uneven, and is likely to reproduce many preexisting vulnerabilities When vulnerabilities are addressed: solutions focus on short term technological fixes such as levees, sea walls, and beach re-nourishment programs that can also have detrimental environmental consequences and promote increased and often unsustainable development. The Ike Dike Extending the sea wall Beach re-nourishment

5 many of our communities are becoming more vulnerable and less resilient. Tend to focus on short term technical solutions and not long term solutions that promote sustainable development: development in low hazard areas environmental resource preservation and restoration appropriate development patterns and construction practices that are consistent with hazard vulnerabilities and risks address equity and access issues Enhancing resiliency and reducing vulnerability should be the goals Develop a suite of Community Disaster Resilience Indicators for: o Coastal counties/parishes along the Gulf Coast Using broad-based indicators that are readily available from secondary data sources Use the results to inform local community CDRI o Working with Local communities and municipalities like Galveston

6 Three common elements emerged from the literature suggesting that disaster resilience should be defined as the ability of a community to: 1. absorb, deflect or resist disaster impacts 2. bounce back after being impacted, and 3. learn from experience and modify its behavior and structure to adapt to future threats

7 DISASTER PHASES ACTIVITIES CAPITAL DOMAIN S INDICATORS I: HAZARD MITIGATION Social Capital Economic Capital Physical Capital Human Capital Example of activities: Building dams, levees, dikes, and floodwalls. Land use planning to prevent development in hazardous areas Strengthening buildings through building codes and building standards. Protecting the natural environment and environmental resources (e.g., wetlands) II: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS Example of activities: Developing response procedures Design and installation of warning systems, Developing plans for evacuation Emergency preparations (Exercise & Drills) Training of emergency personnel Stockpiling of resources e.g., medical supplies DISASTER PHASES ACTIVITIES CAPITAL DOMAIN S INDICATORS III: DISASTER RESPONSE Social Capital Economic Physical Capital Human Capital Capital Example of activities: Securing impacted area Warning Evacuation Search & Rescue Provision of medical care Sheltering evacuees IV: DISASTER RECOVERY Example of activities: (i) Relief & rehabilitation Re-establishment of economic activities Provision of housing, clothing, and food Restoration of critical facilities Restoration of essential community services (ii) Reconstruction Rebuilding of major structure e.g. public buildings, roads, bridges, and dams Revitalizing the economic system Reconstruction of housing

8 Spatial Distribution of CDRI Scores MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA GEORGIA TEXAS LOUISIANA FLORIDA Legend Low resilience High resilience Miles VALIDITY MEASURE CDRI-1 (1) Deaths due to flooding -.420*** (2) Total flood property damage -.239** (4) Uninsured flood property damage -.223** (5) Social vulnerability index -.308** (6) Wind risk.291** (7) Flood risk.270** (8) Surge risk.141 (9) Total risk (wind, flood, and surge).266** Note: ** = prob (r).05; *** = prob (r).01;

9 The picture is highly uneven with respect to States: Florida counties had the highest average CDRI scores, followed, not so closely, by Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with Texas counties, on average, at the bottom. State CDRI Mean Score Rank Florida Alabama Georgia Mississippi Louisiana Texas In general, counties with comprehensive planning, that adopt hazard relevant building codes and zoning regulations, that participate in FEMA CRS rating, and implement other similar policies, were more disaster resilient. TOP 10 LIST BOTTOM 10 LIST Rank County State Score Rank County State Score 1 Monroe Florida West Feliciana Louisiana Leon Florida Kenedy Texas Collier Florida Vernon Louisiana Sarasota Florida Webb Texas Franklin Florida Cameron Texas Lee Florida Bee Texas East Baton Rouge Louisiana Hidalgo Texas Baldwin Alabama Duval Texas Fayette Texas Willacy Texas Okaloosa Florida Starr Texas -1.32

10 The Situation among urban areas in Texas Coastal Counties Policy inconsistencies and disconnects Failure to recognize the very different socio-political environments in which decisions are made Lack of resources and information Failure to capitalize on potential synergies and commonalities among stakeholders as well as windows of opportunity Development and powerful economic interests tend to win out failure to incorporate or heed current research particularly with respect to land-use planning and mitigation policy development and implementation weaknesses in current scientific research

11 Current funding mechanisms almost exclusively support oneshot case studies of limited duration preclude the ability to monitor change in resiliency and vulnerability thereby hindering the development of models that explain change over time. Independent studies too often fail to replicate measurement protocols of common concepts limit comparability across data collection efforts. Most studies only offer partial views of place fail to capture the full complexity of coupled socio-ecological systems. Many independent data collection programs in the public and private sectors are poorly coordinated constraining data sharing among researchers and use by practitioners NSF has undertaken major investments in establishing environmental observatories focus on the structure and dynamics of the biophysical environment and its systems related to resiliency and sustainability issues Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) National Environmental Observatory Network (NEON) What is lacking is an observatory that focuses on the nature and dynamics of the social systems and their built environments Resiliency and Vulnerability Observatory Network (RAVON)

12 1) The Second Assessment and its accompanying volumes which directly assessed the state of hazard and disaster research and research needs for addressing vulnerability and resiliency (Mileti 1999); 2) The National Research Council s assessment of social science research efforts funded by the NSF as part of NEHRP and future needs (NRC 2006); 3) The National Science Board s efforts addressing hurricane science research needs and the development of a new National Hurricane Research Initiative (NSB 2007); 4) The recent Rising to the Challenge report that focused on the critical failures to integrate social science research into the existing national environmental observatories (Vjajjhala, Krupnick, McCormick, Grove, McDowell, Redman, Shabman, Small 2007); 5) NOAA s efforts seeking to develop a social science research agenda related to hurricane forecast and warning (Gladwin, Lazo, Morrow, Peacock and Willoughby 2007); and 6) USGS s efforts to highlight national needs related to natural hazard risk reduction and management (Shapiro, Bernknopf, and Wachter 2007). This observatory would address current obstacles by: supporting development of long term longitudinal data sets; Invest in the development of data collection protocols to ensure comparable measurement in multiple sociopolitical environmental settings and across multiple hazards; build on and complement existing data collection efforts and activities in the public and private sectors; and Enhance the sharing of data throughout research and practice communities

13 Doug Spenser, USGS publications